• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

Ikari said:
Actually the aggregate dynamics of polygamy make it unstable on large levels. Furthermore if you look at any culture or subculture that has endorsed polygamy (and we still have some sects of crazies in this country who do), the most common application is exceedingly sexist and leads to whole hosts of problems including the ejection of members of the society so that polygamist families can exist on some whole. Polygamy in practice has dynamics which infringe upon the rights of others and we have seen this in any sufficiently "large scale" (which for polygamy doesn't have to be a high absolute value) of aggregation. Monogamy, two people making the "core" of the family, we do know to be very stable over time.
Click to expand...

States have MANY different and conflicting laws concerning "marriage" and other "living arrangements" between "partners":

Polygamy Laws > State Statutes > Against Bigamy > Bigamist
 
Kandahar said:
His threat was NOT credible, he already walked it back, and he never took any legal action toward blocking them in the first place. Of all the reasons why people might have gone to Chick-Fil-A yesterday, Rahm Emanuel probably doesn't even crack the top 10. Just who do you think you're kidding? Trying to make this all about Rahm Emanuel, rather than the CEO's hateful comments and pro-discrimination advocacy, is incredibly transparent.
Click to expand...

What about these fine citizens that have the essentailly SAME view as Cathy for SSM?

Black Pastors Call on NAACP to Repudiate SSM - YouTube
 
Ikari said:
The threat was MADE. "Not credible" who do you think YOU'RE kidding. They could at any point do that, they could let Chick-Fil-A take them to court, drag out the proceedings, and in the intern not allow them to open businesses or other actions they could have otherwise done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they didn't. Mitt Romney COULD declare himself Emperor of America, conspire with top military generals to stage a coup, and run the nation as a dictatorship for the rest of his life. But let's instead worry about what will actually happen rather than what could theoretically happen.

Not credible? You're just saying that because you want to make a hack point that no one could possibly be upset over the government threatening action through the use of government force against an individual who exercised their rights. No, it must be because they all hate gay people and don't want same sex marriage! While that is likely the largest demographic, there is nothing to suggest it is the only one. And being upset at government for threatening someone over the exercise of right is acceptable and rational.
Click to expand...

If your goal is to oppose Rahm Emanuel rather than support Chick-Fil-A, buying a chicken sandwich is a very odd way of doing it. Do you always protest the actions of public officials by eating fried food?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Yeah, but they DIDN'T. Mitt Romney COULD declare himself Emperor of America, conspire with top military generals to stage a coup, and run the nation as a dictatorship for the rest of his life. But let's instead worry about what will ACTUALLY happen rather than what could theoretically happen.
Click to expand...

They threatened action for exercise of a right, that is not acceptable. I fear this is a point you don't even want to consider because you'd rather lambaste anyone who may have gone to Chick-Fil-A

Kandahar said:
If your goal is to oppose Rahm Emanuel rather than support Chick-Fil-A, buying a chicken sandwich is a very odd way of doing it. Do you always protest the actions of public officials by eating fried food?
Click to expand...

I'd say swing him from the nearest tree. But others may think that supporting Chik-Fil-A a slightly better form of protest.
 
jamesrage said:
Good for Chick-fil-A.


Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters | Fox News
It used to be that taking a bite of a chicken sandwich just meant you were hungry. Now it has become a symbol of whether you stand for or against same-sex marriage, or – alternately – the right to express your personal views without fear of retaliation.
At Chick-fil-A locations across the country, people voted with their wallets today, coming out to express support for the fast-food chain after CEO Dan Cathy said in an interview that he is a firm backer of traditional marriage.
“I believe what the Bible says (about marriage),” Chauncy Fields told us after wolfing down a breakfast of chicken and biscuits. “So I came out here to support Chick-fil-A and the movement.”
Chris Johnson sees a double standard. “He (Dan Cathy) said the exact same thing that President Obama said,” Johnson told Fox News -- referring to the president’s past opposition to gay marriage – “And he gets negativity, and Obama gets positivity.”
At one Atlanta location, the restaurant was packed, while the line for the drive-thru looped twice around the building and out into the street.

The backlash across the country against Chick-fil-A has been ferocious. After the mayors of Chicago and Boston heaped scorn upon the company, the mayor of Washington, DC, suggested it was peddling “hate chicken.”
Those comments drew a sharp response from Rev. William Owens of the Coalition of African American Pastors. “Some people are saying that because of the position that Chick-fil-A is taking, they don’t want them in their cities. It is a disgrace. It is the same thing that happened when I was marching for civil rights, when they didn’t want a black to come into their restaurant," he told a press conference in Washington, DC.
The Chick-fil-A firestorm has taken on different meanings for different people. For some, it harks to the days of intolerance and segregation. For others, it is about religious views of marriage. But for most people who Fox News spoke to today, it is about free speech.
“I think it comes down to a First Amendment issue. I mean, I do believe in the traditional values of marriage between a man and a woman,” youth pastor Stephen Lenahan told Fox News after a leisurely breakfast with three members of his ministry. He is also puzzled as to why Dan Cathy is such a target, when other corporate CEOs who openly support same-sex marriage are not similarly criticized by conservatives.
Click to expand...
So that's why the place was ****ing packed. I just wanted some godamned waffle fries. This **** needs to stop, because it's impeding my ability to get chicken and waffle fries. I don't have the patience for that crap.
 
Your Star said:
Because the legislature decided to fix the problem instead of the SCOTUS having to rule upon it.
Click to expand...

Correct and that is the LAW OF THE LAND. Trying to bend and "tweek" the constitution is WRONG, it says what it means and means what it says. Changing OPINIONS of 5/4 of our nine robed umpires do not make law, nor does the chief executive, only the elected represetatives of the people do. Marriage is and always was a state law issue, just as age of consent and juvenile justice statutes. Simply because the states differ in their laws does not make it a federal or individual rights issue UNLESS it is addressed by the constitution. I see no cry from the left for uniform 2nd amendment rights, certainly not arguing that the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms must use the least restrictive measures (if any) to ensure the safety of others, but rather that the states are free to do the "will of the people" without any outside interference OR that they must adhere to the constitution AS WRITTEN. Hmm...
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Correct and that is the LAW OF THE LAND. Trying to bend and "tweek" the constitution is WRONG, it says what it means and means what it says. Changing OPINIONS of 5/4 of our nine robed umpires do not make law, nor does the chief executive, only the elected represetatives of the people do. Marriage is and always was a state law issue, just as age of consent and juvenile justice statutes. Simply because the states differ in their laws does not make it a federal or individual rights issue UNLESS it is addressed by the constituon. I see no cry from the left for uniform 2nd amendment rights, certainly not arguing that that INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms must use the least restrictive measures (if any) to ensure the safety of others, but rather that the states are free to do the "will of the people" without any outside interference OR adhere to the constitution AS WRITTEN. Hmm...
Click to expand...

Your so wrong here it's not even funny. I suggest you do some studying on the role of the Supreme Court, and judicial review.
 
Lokiate said:
So that's why the place was ****ing packed. I just wanted some godamned waffle fries. This **** needs to stop, because it's impeding my ability to get chicken and waffle fries. I don't have the patience for that crap.
Click to expand...

Meh, go to Sonic or something else. Chik-Fil-A isn't all that great.
 
Ikari said:
They threatened action for exercise of a right, that is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not. And so he quickly recanted. Chick-Fil-A, on the other hand, has not recanted for its pro-discrimination advocacy and funding of hate groups.

I fear this is a point you don't even want to consider because you'd rather lambaste anyone who may have gone to Chick-Fil-A
Click to expand...

Like I said, if you just went there because you wanted a chicken sandwich, fine. If you went out of your way to specifically go there yesterday because it was "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day," then I don't believe for one second that it's because you were so outraged by Rahm Emanuel.

I'd say swing him from the nearest tree. But others may think that supporting Chik-Fil-A a slightly better form of protest.
Click to expand...

How exactly does buying some fried food make government officials less likely to do this in the future? Do you think Rahm Emanuel gives a damn if you went to Chick-Fil-A yesterday? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Meh, go to Sonic or something else. Chik-Fil-A isn't all that great.
Click to expand...

I just like their fries, and they're the only place in this area that makes waffle fries. The chicken is just because I'm already there, and may as well get a combo. I also like the service at the one here, the staff is really nice, and don't have ****ty attitudes like most of the places in this town.
 
Your Star said:
Your so wrong here it's not even funny. I suggest you do some studying on the role of the Supreme Court, and judicial review.
Click to expand...

OK. The SCOTUS changed its opinion of "separate but equal", based on NO change in the constitution, only a change in the opinion of the judges that VOLUNTEERED to (re)hear the case. The problem with judicial review is that it is TEMPORARY and subject to change without notice, also that the SCOTUS has no NEED to rule on ANYTHING, they have "passed" on many cases offered (appealed) to them simply because they can "opt out" anytime that they wish to do so.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK. The SCOTUS changed its opinion of "separate but equal", based on NO change in the constitution, only a change in the opinion of the judges that VOLUNTEERED to (re)hear the case. The problem with judicial review is that it is TEMPORARY and subject to change without notice, also that the SCOTUS has no NEED to rule on ANYTHING, they have "passed" on many cases offered (appealed) to them simply because they can "opt out" anytime that they wish to do so.
Click to expand...

Why is any of that a problem?
 
Your Star said:
Not being tolerant of intolerance is not itself intolerance.
Click to expand...

Actually...it is. The very definition of intolerance is the lack of tolerance.

Now, not all intolerance is BAD. I'm intolerant of child molestors...that's not bad intolerance imho, but it's still intolerance.
 
Zyphlin said:
Your Star said:
Not being tolerant of intolerance is not itself intolerance.
Click to expand...


Actually...it is. The very definition of intolerance is the lack of tolerance.

Now, not all intolerance is BAD. I'm intolerant of child molestors...that's not bad intolerance imho, but it's still intolerance.
Click to expand...

That statement is the most pathetic and stupid thing ever spoken by the right.

Being against intolerance is called RIGHTEOUSNESS.

So sayeth the Bible. You know, the book the Christian-Conservatives misuses to be intolerant.
 
Ikari said:
Meh, go to Sonic or something else. Chik-Fil-A isn't all that great.
Click to expand...


My sentiments exactly. Never have seen the great attraction. Wendy's has a fried chicken sandwich that is almost identical without those nasty sour pickles. And their waffle fries have a bitter after taste from the grease they're cooked in.

For me, I could care less what the management's religious or political opinions are in any company as long as it doesn't affect their product or services.
 
Kandahar said:
You're right, it's not. And so he quickly recanted. Chick-Fil-A, on the other hand, has not recanted for its pro-discrimination advocacy and funding of hate groups.
Click to expand...

Cihik-Fil-A didn't say anything though. This wasn't an official business statement. A dude said it, just a dude. You can claim he hasn't recanted, and that's true, but he wasn't speaking on behalf of the company or for the company or setting company policy. This was his personal opinion.

Kandahar said:
Like I said, if you just went there because you wanted a chicken sandwich, fine. If you went out of your way to specifically go there yesterday because it was "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day," then I don't believe for one second that it's because you were so outraged by Rahm Emanuel.
Click to expand...

You don't have to believe it, but it remains a possibility and given enough people it will be realized.

Kandahar said:
How exactly does buying some fried food make government officials less likely to do this in the future? Do you think Rahm Emanuel gives a damn if you went to Chick-Fil-A yesterday? :roll:
Click to expand...

I think it will demonstrate public interest in allowing people to speak their minds, as I said I'd say swing him from the nearest tree.
 
kmiller1610 said:
You need to parse it a bit more. Most people are for Gay Unions having the same rights as Marriage. Somewhere around half the people think the word Marriage has a specific meaning and are uncomfortable with that meaning being changed. The issue is not the same as inter-racial marriage because race is superficial. Gay Unions and Straight Unions have many, fundamental differences. Children living with their genetic donors is one of the basic ones. The way things are going, those differences will become less important over time. But the idea that people are irrational or evil for resisting Gay Marriage is pretty far fetched.
Click to expand...

A fine observation.


Sent from my homing pigeon using Crapatalk.
 
hazlnut said:
That statement is the most pathetic and stupid thing ever spoken by the right.

Being against intolerance is called RIGHTEOUSNESS.

So sayeth the Bible. You know, the book the Christian-Conservatives misuses to be intolerant.
Click to expand...

I don't really give a **** what the Bible says. You're barking up the wrong tree attempting to use the bible to define words to this particular poster. Sorry your bigotted stereotype of a Conservative doesn't work.

I care more about the dictionary when it comes to what words mean. Lacking tolerance for something is intolerance.

The only reason you, or others, seem to have an issue with that is because for whatever reason it appears you automatically apply a negative connotation to the word. Such a connotation is not universally inherent within it. There's nothing wrong inherently with being intolerant to things...it's the reasons why one is intolerant, and what they're intolerant of, that begins to define whether that intolerance is a good or bad thing.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
this type of disrespect toward religion is just as bad as any anti gay remarks anyone else has made. mr cathy said his opinion about what marriage was, this is just openly mocking millions of people because their beliefs are different. Why does no one around here condemn these types of remarks?
Click to expand...

I have, but it's tolerated.
 
Your Star said:
First off, this isn't about abortion. Start a thread on abortion if you want to talk about abortion, it's nothing but a straw-man.

And secondly all of those arguments you posted could easily be applied to inter-racial marriage which is actually connected to this issue(unlike abortion) and the SCOTUS has clear precedence on how to handle this. It will be legal through SCOTUs decision within the next 5 years, that is my prediction. And it makes the most sense.
Click to expand...

I used abortion for argumentative purposes, I clearly said that. I was trying to point out how we can't just read into the Constitution what we want. I want to read the Constitution to say that it's a violation to allow abortions because I believe that the unborn deserve constitutional rights because I define them as "persons" but I know that legally I am wrong, just as legally it is wrong to somehow say that the Constitution has guaranteed gay marriage when it's not direct at all about it because some people hold the opinion that defining the marriage union without including homosexuality is illegal discrimination.

Inter-racial marriage is unconstitutional because the Constitution clearly denotes that it is wrong to legally discriminate based on race. I don't believe that as the Constitution stands today that it legally violates states rights and denies them the right to define marriage. Cases have been brought to court that support a states right to define marriage how they see fit and that the government cannot deny that right to the states.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
this type of disrespect toward religion is just as bad as any anti gay remarks anyone else has made. mr cathy said his opinion about what marriage was, this is just openly mocking millions of people because their beliefs are different. Why does no one around here condemn these types of remarks?
Click to expand...

I've been in and out of the thread for the last few days, and I haven't noticed any anti-gay remarks here. Those who support ChickFilA aren't gay bashers. It's quite the other way round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom